Changes

==Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)==

==Supreme Court Rules Police Can Violate The 4th Amendment (If They Are Ignorant Of The Law)==

"U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law"

"U.S. Supreme Court Rules 8-1 that Citizens Have No Protection Against Fourth Amendment Violations by Police Officers Ignorant of the Law"

 

"In a blow to the [[constitutional rights]] of [[citizen]]s, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 in [[Heien v. State of North Carolina]] that [[police]] officers are permitted to violate [[American]] citizens’ Fourth Amendment [[unalienable rights|rights]] if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “[[ignorance of the law is no excuse]],” the [[Court]] ruled that [[evidence]] obtained by police during a [[traffic stop]] that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The [[Rutherford Institute]] had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]], the Court's lone dissenter, warned that the court's ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”

"In a blow to the [[constitutional rights]] of [[citizen]]s, the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] ruled 8-1 in [[Heien v. State of North Carolina]] that [[police]] officers are permitted to violate [[American]] citizens’ Fourth Amendment [[unalienable rights|rights]] if the violation results from a “reasonable” mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that “[[ignorance of the law is no excuse]],” the [[Court]] ruled that [[evidence]] obtained by police during a [[traffic stop]] that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law. The [[Rutherford Institute]] had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hold law enforcement officials accountable to knowing and abiding by the rule of law. Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]], the Court's lone dissenter, warned that the court's ruling “means further eroding the Fourth Amendment’s protection of civil liberties in a context where that protection has already been worn down.”